DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.174 of 8.5.2007<br /> Decided on: 25.2.2008<br /> <br /> Jagdish Kumar S/o Sawan Ram H.No.F-4394, Sham Nagar, Opposite L.I.C.Building, Rajpura, District, Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. S.D.O.West Sub-Divison, Rajpura,I.C.L.Road,Rajpura,District Patiala.<br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.B.M.Singh,adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Smt.Puja Puri,adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, Jagdish Kumar has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> The complainant is using electricity and paying the regular bill to the opposite parties department. The account number of complainant is GF 04/0837.The said connection is installed by the opposite parties at the residence of the complainant. That on dated 5.5.2007,when the complainant was not present in his house, suddenly a call was received from his wife that 6-7 persons of the employees of the opposite parties have come at the residence of complainant and they have disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant without any cause. That at the time of disconnecting the said connection, they have also insulted the wife of the complainant. That till today nothing is due against the account No.GF-04/0837 which is in the name of the complainant and complainant is regularly paying the electricity charges time to time. That it is unjustified, improper and arbitrary upon the opposite parties department for disconnecting the electricity connection without any cause/reason. That before disconnecting the said connection, neither the opposite parties department informed to the complainant nor gave any written notice to the complainant which is mandatory, if complainant is to pay any amount. That it is the deficiency in service upon the opposite parties department. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the amount relates to A/c No.CF-04/0727, which is commercial connection and the defaulting amount of Rs.52,426/- is standing against the consumer in respect of the said connection in which the amount of Rs.14,999/-relates to A/c No.CF 04/413, the said connection is also of NRS category and the complainant is using the same for commercial purposes alongwith his brother namely Sh.Som Nath.It is admitted that the connection bearing a/c No.GF04/837 is being used by the complainant for domestic purposes. However, the complainant has concealed the fact that he was using the connection bearing a/c No.CF04/0727 and CF-04/413for commercial purposes and is earning profits from the business for which the electricity is being used by the complainant. The amount of the said connection bearing CF04 0727 and CF-04/413 which is outstanding against the complainant and his brother Som Nath has been charged from the connection bearing A/c No.GF 04/837.The connection was disconnected on 14.5.2007.So it is wrong that the connection was disconnected on 5.5.2007 or 6 persons of the Board had visited the site of the consumer for disconnection of his connection. The amount of A/c Nos.CF04/727 and 413 has been charged from the said account of the complainant bearing <br /> a/c No.GF04/837 and even the complainant is a habitual defaulter in making the payment of electricity dues to the Board. It is denied that the demand is illegal, improper or unjustified. The Board has rightly taken the action against the complainant. The present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts and twisting the facts of the case. The complainant was issued a notice bearing notice memo No.1381 dated 25.4.2007 vide which it was duly informed to the complainant that he may deposit the amount of Rs.52,426/-in the office of Board, otherwise his connection of <br /> a/c No.GF04/837 shall be disconnected. The complainant has evaded to receive the notice as per report of the concerned official of the Board. The concerned official namely Sh.Sucha Singh ,Bill distributor was deputed by the concerned office of the board for handing over the notice dated 25.4.2007 to the complainant but he had reported that the complainant was not available at the site i.e shop in which the connection bearing a/c Nos.CF 0727 and 413 are installed and being used by the complainant. Again on 30.4.2007 the concerned official had visited the site of the consumer and had met the complainant but the complainant had refused to receive the notice. That earlier too the said official had visited the site on 27.4.2007 and 28.4.2007.There is no deficiency in service. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, bill dated 1.4.2007,Ex.C2, copy of bill dated 4.2.2007,Ex.C3, copy of bill receipt dated 21.2.2007,Ex.C4 and copy of receipt dated 18.4.2007,Ex.C5.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of SDO Ashok Kumar, affidavit,Ex.R2 of Dev Raj,JE, affidavit,Ex.R3 of Sucha Singh, bill distributor, copy of report of Sucha Singh,Ex.R4,notice of notice No.1381,Ex.R5 and copy of TDCO dated 10.5.2007,Ex.R6.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. The facts are that an electricity connection bearing a/c No.GF 04/837 is in DS category. The opposite parties disconnected the electricity connection without any cause or reason. However, the demand was raised in the sum of Rs.52,426/- on 25.4.2007 vide memo No.1381,Ex.R5 relating to a/c No.CF04/727.The case of the opposite parties is that both these connection bearing Nos.CF04/727 and GF04/0837 were in the same premises and were being used by the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have alleged that a sum of Rs.37427/- is outstanding against the complainant against his commercial account No.CF04/0727 and further Rs.14999/-is outstanding against one Som Nath, brother of the complainant against his account No.CF04/413 total Rs.52427/- though nothing is pending against the complainant regarding domestic account No.GF04/837.The penalty amount against account No.CF04/0727 and CF04/413 have been charged from the complainant against his domestic account No.CF 04/837.The case of the complainant was that if there was any demand against Sh.Som Nath qua account No.CF04/413 that could be realized from him (Som Nath) and in case of non payment, the electricity connection bearing account No.CF04/413 could be disconnected. The connection in the name of Som Nath has nothing to do with the connection of the complainant bearing account No.GF04/0837.The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, argued that both the connections were in the same premises and were being used by the complainant. Even if, it is presumed that it is true, no rule has been shown that for non payment of certain charges against one account holder the same can be recovered or asked for to be paid by the other account holder in the same premises. For the non payment of the demand raised against Som Nath bearing account No.CF04/413 electricity connection of the complainant really could not have been disconnected. The question that arises is that because of this reason i.e. non payment of the demanded amount against account Nos.CF04/413 and CF04/0727 electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected which according to us could not have been done. On this point we are supported by the authority Subhash Chander Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 11(2007)CPJ 77.<br /> 8. The perusal of the bill,Ex.C2 dated 1.4.2007 and bill,Ex.C3 dated 4.2.2007 and the receipts,Exs.C4 and C5 show that the complainant has paid for the electricity consumed by him regarding account No.GF04/0827 and nothing remains due against the complainant regarding this account number. The perusal of the memo dated 25.4.2007,Ex.R5, shows that it was written to the complainant wherein it is alleged that an amount of Rs.52426/-is outstanding against account No.CF04/727 and that the same be paid within 7 days failing which this amount would be debited to account No.GF04/837 which is in the name of the complainant. No law has been shown which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer. So the amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added in the bill of another connection even if the demand relate to the same consumer. The disputed amount could not be added to the account number of the complainant. The disconnection of the connection of the complainant, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> 9. In the result we accept the complaint partly with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order and the opposite parties are directed to restore the electricity connection of the complainant immediately. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:25.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />